Skip to main content

View Diary: Stochastic Democracy vs FiveThirtyEight (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is confusing, David (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NRG Guy
    1.  Nate's predicted EV was 353 for fixed prediction (Mccain vs. Obama in each state) and 349 for probabalistic (which allowed a given state to be on both McC and Obama side).
    1.  I find it hard to see in your charts which states you got wrong or right. Nate missed Indiana by a small amount. He got 49 of 50 states right.  How many did you get right?
    1.  Using the "538 regression" estimate is wrong. You have to use his "projection."  The "regression estimate" is just an intermediate value in his projection.  To say that Nate's "regression estimate" of Indiana was far off makes no sense; that's not his projection -- not the one that he used to predict the electoral vote outcome.

    Seems to me that you've cooked your comparison here to favor your own model.

    "Getting elected is the only true moral imperative that politicians believe in." -- Anon

    by zackamac on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM PST

    •  Great Questions (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry if my writing is confusing. I'm a math major, so writing isn't really one of my strong-points. Please allow me to clarify.

      1. He mentioned several numbers, but I used the one that he used as the title of his post. Before I used 353, and somebody sent me an email complaining.

      But, the potential confusion is why I linked to both of our website's prediction pages.

      1. We both predicted the exact same states. I didn't want to clutter the page, and I thought the information was conveyed by clicking through to our respective prediction pages.
      1. I did not use the "538 regression" estimate when computing these figures, I'm not sure why you would think I did. I used his projection numbers, as you say I should have.

      The point I was trying to make, but that I guess I did not convey well, was that Nate's extensive use of regression was the reason why my model was more accurate than his in the presidential race.

      As for your last point, that I cooked my comparison to make my model look favorable:

      I've tried my best to be impartial, but that's obviously impossible. That is why I've been as transparent as possible in supplying the relevant raw data.

      Hope that clears things up,

      David

      •  In your post just above mine (0+ / 0-)

        you refer to Nate's regression estimate being wrong for Indiana.  My point is that that is irrelevant to any assessment of the accuracy of his projection.

        "Getting elected is the only true moral imperative that politicians believe in." -- Anon

        by zackamac on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'll have to explain that one (0+ / 0-)

          While it is irrelevant to any assessment of the accuracy of his projection(simply calculating the mean error does that pretty well), it is quite valid as a critique to his methodology.

          He calculated his projection estimate by calculating a weighted average of several "polls"(one of which included the regression estimate), and then assuming some mean regression.

          I am making the argument that the reason his presidential forecasts displayed such high Kurtosis, was because he gave the regression estimates too high a weight.

          We could discuss the assertion if you wish, but to declare that discussion of methodology is irrelevant seems strange.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site